The Bible, the Church or the British Constitution?

Though I no longer regard any religion as the exclusive repository and dispenser of universal truth—indeed I have grown quite opposed to the notion of religions as arbiters of human rectitude—I nonetheless remain fascinated by the intellectual tensions within Christianity, probably because this particular belief system has had so much influence on my personal life and on American culture in general.

In my more youthful years, as I was flip-flopping from Protestantism to atheism to Catholicism and finally to agnosticism, the subject I found most critical (so long, of course, as I was in one of my “believing” phases) was the debate about doctrinal authority. Having grown up singing “The Bible Tells Me So,” I wondered who or what within the Christian context should legitimately function as the judge of right and wrong? What authority should tell me so”? The Bible? The Pope? Franklin Graham?

My internal questioning almost always found its expression thusly: do our Christian beliefs and practices derive their legitimacy from directives in the Bible—and the Bible alone (sola scriptura)—or does the truth find its ultimate revelation in something more organic—but also more nebulous—than static, inflexible scripture—viz. the ever-growing corpus of traditions preserved, nurtured and yes, extended, by an evolving church? 

At some point in my “spiritual journey,’ I came to reject the zealous Protestant notion that

scripture alone constituted any sort of “full and sufficient” Dictionary of Truth.  On the contrary! As I learned long ago in religious classes at (Presbyterian!) Macalester College, the New Testament, in particular, can best be described as an untidy, desultory, self-contradicting compendium of narratives recounting only the most “successful” beliefs and practices of the first 200 years of Christianity. 

Scholars tell us that these books were penned by authors representing diverse Christian communities with differing (sometimes conflicting) points of view—from about 50 CE to 100 CE. And, we learn additionally, they were not, as a body, “canonized”—i.e., accepted as “officially” truthful—until the 4th century, and only then because they had managed to survive after other more controversial (therefore “less true”) writings had been gradually (or abruptly) thrown out. 

Finally, it is worth noting that the canonizing authority for these newly “holy” scriptures bore little resemblance to almighty Yahweh issuing commands on Mt. Sinai. Rather, it was a higgledy-piggledy collection of clerics meeting in a series of church councils—Council of Rome 328, Synod of Hippo, 393, Council of Carthage, 397. In short, what fundamentalists regard as an all-encompassing anthology of divine truth might better be described as a ramshackle collection of first-century stories (about a Jesus none of the writers had ever met)—but which were nevertheless still deemed relevant to the fourth-century church. 

So, when I became a Catholic, I accepted the primacy of the Church over these diffuse biblical tales. I acknowledged that the Church MADE the Bible—not vice versa—and that the Bible could only be understood as a a partial, albeit revered, expression of early beliefs and practices, not as an exclusive repository of divine truth. 

It occurred to me then, and it still seems logical to my post-Catholic mind, that the written scriptures adopted in the 4th century were not even an entirely necessary element of the church’s overall teaching. Is it possible that Pope Pius IV was justified when, in 1584 (Council of Trent), he denounced Bible reading in the vernacular as divisive and “not for the people”?

In any event, once I had acknowledged the Bible’s subordination to the church’s magisterium, I could see no reason why evolving church tradition could not “discover” and “canonize” additional strands of ultimate truth.  Hence, legitimacy could be conferred upon such non-biblical doctrines as the Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, etc.  Indeed—here’s a provocative thought—couldn’t the church, in the light of evolving thinking within the community, produce and canonize additional books to be included in an updated, more comprehensive Bible? Or in a sequel? The Holy Bible Too?

Thus, I came to believe, at least for a time, that the Catholics and Orthodox had a better argument than the sola scriptura folks: Christian scripture IS (I concluded) merely an outgrowth and a component part of Christian faith. The Bible IS just a bold, but early, step forward in the development of the faith.

Now, what does all this mean to someone (me) who has in my old age rejected the authority of both the Bible and the Church? Probably only the lesson I have learned (or corroborated) by my investigations: instead of according authority over human affairs to static, archaic writings, we should instead place our trust in entities that are living, evolving, and willing to change in response to reality.

For instance, and in conclusion, I insist once again that the British Constitution—unwritten, tradition-derived, but quickly responsive to circumstances—is more efficient and more worthy of “canonization” than the ossified, archaic scriptures of our American Constitution. The British have a tradition. We have a Bible.

Honni soit qui mal y pense.

The Book of Revelation and Lucky Sevens Jackpots

I wonder if the author of Revelation (John of Patmos?) was a slot

machine addict. He certainly seems obsessed with the number 7.  There’s this Beast with seven heads; a red Dragon with seven heads; a Slain Lamb with seven horns AND seven eyes; seven Bowls of God’s Wrath; seven Seals; seven Trumpets—well, it’s a real jackpot of sevens, innit? To top it all off, the whole narrative is apparently intended to convey a secret winning strategy to Seven Churches in Asia. It could be subheaded : How to Beat the Odds at the Armageddon Casino! 

I once visited St. John’s cave on Patmos where he supposedly recorded his visions. It was pretty claustrophobic. I can see why he lost his mind and became a pokie.

How To Acquire “Noblesse” in the 21st Century

It would seem that an “Epstein Connection“ is the new “Droit du seigneur”—but with a whorehouse twist.

In 14th century Europe, you had to be BORN an aristocrat in order to acquire the “privilege” of sexually abusing young women with impunity, even (and especially) on their wedding night. 

In 21st century America, however, similar status—along with an accompanying dispensation to “grab pussy”—is tacitly accorded to anyone who was a “Friend of Jeffrey” and/or frequented his various establishments. Absolutely no need for actual noble lineage, nor, certainly, for any kind of ethical nobility. The only prerequisites were/are lucre and lechery in abundance, plus a come-and-get-it invitation to Epstein’s island. 

I suspect that, beneath the redactions, the hardcore of America’s aristocracy is neatly listed in the Epstein Files. This definitely gives new meaning to the expression “noblesse oblige.” And validation to that very sad line in “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”: NOBODY’S GOOD!

Anti-immigration: Reaping the Whirlwind

Human migration has become my obsession, I guess. It is, I think, basically unstoppable, at least in the long term. Walls, incarcerations, deportations, exterminations, etc., can, of course, TEMPORARILY and UNEVENLY arrest mass movements of humans. But over time, the walls will be breached and the posses outrun. Human beings are hard-wired to seek the best conditions available, and thus they are willing to take considerable risks to acquire them. Over time, they will figure out ways to get in and settle down. 

IMO , therefore , the existing populations of places chosen by migrants (fortunate countries like the U.S.) can best serve their OWN interests by accepting and ASSIMILATING new arrivals ( provided , of course, these arrivals have no malicious intent to exterminate, expel or somehow endanger the natives—i.e., orchestrated conquest is not involved). Otherwise, needless, inexcusable, human suffering is likely to result, merely because devotees of two primordial impulses—improve yourself/fear outsiders—have been unwilling or unable to use human reason to devise a modus vivendi. In that scenario, alas, no one wins.  And if such reptilian tribalism prevails, the once “greener grass” will, almost certainly, itself be neglected by a newly-fractious society, more worried about profitless infighting than cooperative gardening. 

In other words, it is likely that—untended—the former Eden will ultimately wither and find itself transformed into an unhappy desert—a land resembling, alas, the very shithole countries that the immigrants had so recently sought to escape. And all this is plausible because anti-immigration campaigns, in their stupid refusal to acknowledge fundamental human impulses, are almost organically destined to produce little gain and much loss—on both sides:  loss for the immigrants—whose hoped-for green grass turned out to be unattainable —and even greater loss for the natives—whose forsaken green grass has dried up and blown away.

 “For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind". (Hosea 8:7.) All so stupid. All so sad.

ICE is an Abomination

Rant alert!! The anti-immigrant campaign is only spuriously about “law-enforcement.” In reality, ICE is engaged in what amounts to a brutal POGRAM with at least two all-too-familiar and all-too-loathsome objectives: 1) SCAPEGOATING (in order to justify political incompetence by “blaming” minorities), and 2) ETHNIC CLEANSING (in order to legitimize brutally “removing” these minorities).

Some definitions:

POGROM: a mob attack, either approved or condoned by authorities, against the persons and property of a religious, racial, or national minority (historically against Jews in particular). Encyclopedia Britannica.

SCAPEGOATING: the act of unfairly blaming an individual or group for problems, mistakes, or negative experiences, often to deflect responsibility from the actual source or to serve other psychological needs. Google.

ETHNIC CLEANSING: the systematic forced removal of ethnic, racial, or religious groups from a given area, with the intent of making the society ethnically homogeneous. Wikipedia.

I do not believe I can remain silent about this cruel and inhumane operation. ICE is an abomination.😭

Mercury Is Always In Retrograde

The entirety of humanity—worldwide—seems convulsed with right-wing, reactionary, anti-rational, anti-scientific sentiment. Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor was right: our species is not yet ready to accept the freedom and the responsibility offered by the exercise of our reason (and by Dostoyevsky’s Jesus). We don’t want to have to make decisions about things; thinking is too hard, too stressful. 

So people everywhere, even (perhaps especially) in those societies that are best-educated and thus potentially best-equipped to advance positive policies for humankind (the collective responsibility in these privileged societies being greater, it may follow that the collective refusal is correspondingly more onerous) are renouncing the single trait that distinguishes us from other creatures: our ability to make moral choices, discerning what is good from what is bad for the well-being of our species.

In any event, this zealous quest for authoritarian rule is a willful rejection of human freedom—a retreat to the brutishness the Grand Inquisitor recognizes as satanic, but—fortunately for the Rulers—controllable. And for the Ruled—comfortingly mindless.

And so, everywhere, all those aggrieved folks demanding “freedom” are actually submitting themselves, willingly and even enthusiastically, to freedom’s very opposite: the tyranny of inquisitors, dictators, religious authorities, gurus, charlatans, influencers, The Old Farmer’s Almanac and interpreters of Mercury in Retrograde. No wonder Trump won: he’s gonna, like the Inquisitor, “take care of us, whether we like it or not.” And, sadly, most of us do like it.

Same Old Weirdness

Why do journalists continue to feign “surprise” at Trump’s frantic bullshit—his flip-flopping, fantasizing and falsifying? Surely, by now, all of us (including his own “Faithful”) recognize that, c’mon, he doesn’t mean ANYTHING at ALL by ANY of it—that he may say something on Monday, contradict it on Tuesday, deny it on Wednesday, and forget it on Thursday. As Tim Walz says, it’s all just “weird.”

I’m amused to note, though, that many of the Faithful seem secretly (and hypocritically) relieved by this out-of-touch-ness. Since they consider themselves “good” people, they take self-forgiving comfort in knowing that their Great Leader himself is “fake” and therefore has no real-world intention of implementing (or indeed remembering) any of these dubious positions that even they, the Faithful, find embarrassing, aberrant or downright unethical.

 As for the rest of us, those who DO know a hawk from a handsaw, well, instead of pedantically “fact-checking” stuff that everyone not brain-dead knows is twaddle, shouldn’t we just dismiss the whole melodrama as a moronic rerun of a children’s show that no thinking adult would ever watch? Saturday morning fantasy. Certainly not worthy of prime-time “analysis.” It’s just so weird.